United States v. Donald Simms, II, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 13559

Defendant pleaded guilty to gun and drug offenses and received 270 months total, including a 180-month mandatory minimum for the gun offense due to armed career criminal status.
Judge added 30 months for supervised-release violation; that 30 months was intended to run concurrently with the 240 months, but the judge initially stated it might run consecutively for policy reasons.
On appeal, the Seventh Circuit affirmed the conviction but vacated the sentence and remanded for resentencing due to two errors: mischaracterization of the intended overall sentence and a clerical error on the sentencing form.
Court remanded to determine whether the defendant would be sentenced within or outside the advisory guidelines range and to ensure the supervised-release sentence ran concurrently with the others, without requiring a new sentencing hearing.
On remand, the district court sentenced 230 months, consisting of gun and drug offenses, with the supervised-release term running concurrently, and declined to grant a further five-month reduction after receiving new cooperation information.
The appellate court held the remand was general in substance and that the district court could resentence within the guidelines without a fresh hearing, provided it adhered to the remand command.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was the remand for resentencing limited or general?	Simms argued the remand required a new sentencing from scratch.	Simms argued for a fresh resentencing procedure under remand.	Remand was general in substance; district court could resentence within guidelines without a new hearing.
Must the supervised-release violation be counted concurrently or consecutively after remand?	Simms argued for a potentially different ordering that could affect total punishment.	Simms argued for keeping or altering the sequence as originally contemplated.	Supervised-release sentence run concurrently with other sentences as remanded.
Did the district court properly weigh criminal history under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)?	Simms contended the district court gave excessive weight to criminal history.	Simms argued the court should not accord extra weight to history beyond guideline range.	Weight given to criminal history within reasonable discretion; within permissible bounds.
Was the checkmark on the 'Statement of Reasons' form an error requiring further remand or hearing?	Simms argued the form created confusion about intended sentence.	Simms argued the form error necessitated additional procedures.	Form ambiguity did not require anew hearing; remand allowed clarification and adjustment.

United States v. Paladino, 401 F.3d 471 (7th Cir. 2005) (limited remand authority; advisory guidance on remand scope)
United States v. Taylor, 509 F.3d 839 (7th Cir. 2007) (limited remand for ruling or advice; jurisdiction retained)
United States v. Alburay, 415 F.3d 782 (7th Cir. 2005) (recognizes district court discretion post-remand)
United States v. Polland, 56 F.3d 776 (7th Cir. 1995) (limited remand with specific instructions)
United States v. Young, 66 F.3d 830 (7th Cir. 1995) (remand may be general; cannot exceed remand scope)
United States v. Johnson, 685 F.3d 660 (7th Cir. 2012) (considerations for proportionality under §3553(a))
United States v. Bullion, 466 F.3d 574 (7th Cir. 2006) (scope of remand and sentencing adjustments)